United States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, And
Toxic Substances
(7501C)
EPA 735-B-93-005b
February 1994
&EPA Review, Approval, and
Evaluation of
State Management Plans
Appendix A
Appendix to the Guidance for Pesticides and
Ground Water State Management Plans
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
Review, Approval, and Evaluation
of State Management Plans
Appendix A
IMPLEMENTATION DOCUMENT FOR THE
PESTICIDES AND GROUND WATER STRATEGY
vvEPA
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
-------
Contents
Chapter Page
1 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Overview of Generic and Pesticide State Management Plans
(SMPs) 1-1
1.2 Generic State Management Plans (SMPs) 1-1
1.3 Pesticide State Management Plans 1-3
1.4 Legal Framework for State Management Plans 1-3
1.5 Pesticide SMP Regulations 1-5
1.6 SMP Review Approach 1-5
1.7 SMP Implementation and Oversight Approach 1-5
1.8 Roadmap of Appendix A 1-7
2 Overview of Review Process for State Management Plans 2-1
3 Review of State Management Plans for Completeness 3-1
3.1 Who Does the Completeness Review? 3-1
3.2 What is the Time Frame of the Completeness Review? 3-1
3.3 What Are the Procedures for the Completeness Review? 3-1
4 Review of State Management Plans for Content 4-1
4.1 Who Does the Content Review? 4-1
4.2 What Is the Time Frame for the Content Review? 4-3
4.3 What Are the Procedures for the Content Review? 4-3
4.4 Consistency with Conservation Compliance Plans (Pesticide
SMPs only) 4-4
5 Evaluation of State Management Plan Implementation 5-1
5.1 Pesticide SMP Biennial Report 5-1
5.2 Pesticide SMP Biennial Report - Programmatic Evaluation 5-2
5.3 Pesticide SMP Biennial Report - Environmental Evaluation 5-3
5.4 Pesticide SMP Biennial Report Evaluation Process 5-3
5.5 Roles and Responsibilities for Evaluating Pesticide SMPs 5-4
5.6 Summary of Evaluation Outcomes 5-7
5.7 Submittal of Monitoring Data to the EPA Pesticides in Ground
Water Data Base 5-8
Page i
-------
Contents (continued)
Chapter Page
6 Updating State Management Plans 6-1
6.1 The SMP Update 6-2
6.2 The SMP Updating Process 6-2
6.3 Roles and Responsibilities for Updating SMPs 6-2
7 Withdrawal of Approval for a Pesticide State Management Plan 7-1
7.1 The Withdrawal Process 7-1
7.2 Roles and Responsibilities for Withdrawing Pesticide SMP
Approval 7-2
Page ii
-------
List of Tables
Table Page
1 Key Participants in SMP Review and Approval Process 2-3
2 Responsibilities for Review and Approval Process 2-4
List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Sources of Guidance on SMPs 1-4
2 SMP Process 1-6
3 Review and Approval Process for Pesticide SMPs 2-2
4 Regional Completeness Review Process for SMPs 3-2
5 Regional Content Review Process for Pesticide SMPs 4-2
6 Evaluation of Pesticide SMPs 5-5
7 Data Elements for the Pesticides in Ground Water Data Base 5-9
8 Update Process for Pesticide SMPs 6-3
9 Withdrawal Process for Pesticide SMPs 7-3
Page iii
-------
Chapter 1
Chapter 1
Introduction
This Appendix (Appendix A) to the Guidance for Pesticides and Ground Water
State Management Plans provides the procedures and time frames for EPA's review,
approval/concurrence, and evaluation of State Management Plans (SMPs). Specifically,
it describes a two-step review process and the roles and responsibilities of the Regions
and States. It also contains biennial review procedures for evaluating the implementation
of SMPs to determine whether a State is successfully protecting its ground water
resources from pesticide contamination. In addition, this Appendix presents methods for
States to update their SMPs, should this become necessary. Finally, it outlines the
conditions that might lead to withdrawal of approval for a Pesticide SMP and procedures
for States to prevent or remedy such a withdrawal.
Appendix A represents EPA guidance to States on the review, approval, and
evaluation of Generic and Pesticide SMPs. Some of this information will also be
proposed for public comment in an upcoming regulation specifying pesticides for which
a Pesticide SMP will be required. This guidance document does not establish a binding
norm -- Agency decisions to approve or disapprove Pesticide SMPs will be made on a
case-by-case basis by applying the regulation to the specific facts of the case.
1.1 Overview of Generic and Pesticide State Management Plans
(SMPs)
There are two types of SMPs: Generic SMPs that address the SMP components
in generalized terms and Pesticide SMPs that address specific pesticides. Both types of
SMPs consist of twelve components that must be addressed to varying degrees to reflect
the degree of risk represented by the differences in aquifer sensitivity, pesticide use, and
agronomic practices in a particular State. The components of SMPs are discussed in
detail in the Guidance for Pesticides and Ground Water State Management Plans (see
Chapter 3).
1.2 Generic State Management Plans (SMPs)
States are strongly encouraged to take the initiative voluntarily in the development
of Generic SMPs even before EPA requires Pesticide SMPs through a chemical-specific
regulatory action. In addition, FIFRA ground water-related and CWA Section 106 (ground
water) grant funds are available to support activities to develop a Generic SMP
(requirements for FIFRA grant funds are described in the Agency document Consolidated
Pesticide Cooperative Agreement Guidance, issued annually by the Office of Pesticide
Programs).
EPA acknowledges that development of Pesticide SMPs initially will be time- and
resource-intensive. Therefore, EPA encourages States to begin developing a Generic
Page 1-1
-------
Chapter 1
SMP prior to identification of a specific pesticide of concern. A Generic SMP should
assist the State in preparing for the eventuality that SMPs are required for specific
pesticides of concern.
EPA believes that certain aspects of each SMP component will be generic within
a State regardless of the specific pesticide in question. Under a Generic SMP, a State
will address all SMP components, but will cover those elements in generalized terms that
are not specific to a particular pesticide. For example, the Generic SMP could describe
fully the State's general philosophy and goals toward protection of ground water;
describe fully the various agencies and entities involved in SMP implementation and their
responsibilities for carrying out the SMP, including coordination mechanisms; and set
forth a detailed scheme of varying degrees of preventive measures, educational efforts,
and pesticide use and agronomic practices the State may employ in a Pesticide SMP.
The Generic Plan should also give schedules and milestones. Moreover, the Generic
SMP needs to go beyond a planning document. States should use the Generic SMP to
put in place the resources and coordinating mechanisms that will be required to develop
and implement a Pesticide SMP. A Generic SMP, for example, might provide the State's
program and time frame for mapping its ground water resources and even describe their
basic operations; a Pesticide SMP would require the mapping program to be in
operation.
EPA does not intend to require that Generic SMPs be submitted for concurrence.
However, EPA strongly encourages States to seek EPA review, comment, and
concurrence on their Generic SMPs. .This will not only facilitate EPA's review of future
Pesticide SMPs, but will also ensure that States have adequate time to develop the
pesticide-specific information within the time allowed once a pesticide is identified as
requiring an approved Pesticide SMP for continued use. If a State is required to have an
approved Pesticide SMP and fails to gain approval, legal sale and use of that pesticide
within the State will not be permitted. Thus, to assist in ensuring the continued availability
of a pesticide of concern, EPA encourages States to develop Generic SMPs prior to the
need for a Pesticide SMP.
Finally, development of Generic SMPs will complement the overall Ground Water
Protection Principles and their objective of implementing Comprehensive State Ground
Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs) because many of the components that would be
adequately addressed in a Generic SMP are activities that also need to be defined within
the context of a CSGWPP. The Agency believes that developing coordination
mechanisms within the States, outlining responsibilities and authorities, and working with
the Agency toward an acceptable SMP will accomplish two critical objectives: (1) it will
improve a State's institutional framework for coordinating all ground water activities (i.e.,
program enforcement, ground water classification/mapping, monitoring, etc.), which will
better prepare the States to focus prevention and source reduction measures on areas
of ground water vulnerability and high use and value; and (2) it will build the relationships
necessary to comprehensively manage ground water as a resource within the States and
between the States and federal government.
Page 1-2
-------
Chapter 1
1.3 Pesticide State Management Plans
EPA will invoke the SMP approach for a specific chemical if: (1) the Agency
concludes from the evidence of a chemical's contamination potential that the pesticide
"may cause unreasonable adverse effects to human health or the environment" in the
absence of effective local management measures; and (2) the Agency determines that,
although labelling and restricted use classification measures are insufficient to ensure
adequate protection of ground water resources, national cancellation would not be
necessary if States assume the management of the pesticide in sensitive areas to
address effectively the contamination risk. If EPA invokes the SMP approach for a
specific chemical, its legal sale and use would be confined to States with an EPA-
approved Pesticide SMP.
As with Generic SMPs, Pesticide SMPs must address all twelve components as
illustrated in Figure 1. However, a Pesticide SMP should contain all the generic
information appropriate to the Generic SMP plus all the information specific to the
pesticide of concern. If EPA determines that a Pesticide SMP is necessary for a specific
pesticide, both the generic and specific aspects of the SMP components will have to be
addressed in order for the Pesticide SMP to be deemed adequate. In addition, the
Pesticide SMP must demonstrate that a State's programs are in place and operating to
protect ground water from pesticide contamination. Pesticide SMPs will be allowed a
substantial range of flexibility in the form and manner of their assessment, prevention,
monitoring, and response actions, reflecting each State's ground water protection
philosophy and differing regulatory approaches. Further, the components may vary in
detail in relation to the prospective magnitude of the ground water contamination threat.
1.4 Legal Framework for State Management Plans
Two provisions of FIFRA support the use of Pesticide SMPs as a condition of initial
registration, continued registration, or legal availability of a pesticide. These are the
restricted use provisions under Section 3, and the cancellation provision under Section
6 of the Act. Under Section 3 "other regulatory restrictions" authority, EPA would
undertake a rulemaking, with publication in the Federal Register (FR), of the details of the
proposed action and opportunity for public comment, to classify one or more pesticides
for restricted use. SMPs would be specified as part of the restrictions required. The
basis for the action is a determination that the reduction in risk outweighs the decrease
in benefits (this may be quantified as an increase in costs) imposed by restrictions.
The Section 6 approach is to propose cancellation of the pesticide, unless there
is an approved SMP in place. The basis for the action is a determination that, as the
pesticide is currently used, its risks outweigh benefits, and cancellation is warranted.
However, use under an approved SMP is found to have an acceptable balance of
benefits over risks.
Page 1-3
-------
"D
0)
Figure 1
Sources of Guidance on SMPs
o
0)
-&
to
1. Philosophy and goals
2. Roles and responsibilities
3. Legal authority
4. Resources
5. Assessment and planning
6. Monitoring
7. Prevention
8. Response
9. Enforcement mechanisms
10. Public awareness and participation
11. Information dissemination
12. Records and reporting
Guidance for
Pesticides and
Ground Water
State Management
Plans
Assessment,
Prevention,
Monitoring, and
Response
Components of
State Management
Plans
Review, Approval,
and Evaluation
of State
Management
Plans
Appendix
A
Appendix
B
F3N006-1
-------
Chapter 1
In actions under either Section 3 or Section 6, the SMP requirement is referenced
on the product label, so that the product can be legally used only in States with an
approved SMP.
1.5 Pesticide SMP Regulations
EPA plans to publish a rule in the Federal Register declaring that sale and use of
certain pesticides are prohibited as of a specific date, except in States that have an EPA-
approved Pesticide SMP for that pesticide. This means that a State must have an
approved SMP in place by this date if it wants to continue using the pesticide in question.
States can submit plans after the deadline; however, the pesticide in question cannot be
used in a State between the deadline date, which is specified in the regulation, and final
approval of the Pesticide SMP. Further, if the State submits the SMP before the deadline
date but does not submit the SMP in time for the 180-day Regional review, the State risks
losing use of the pesticide. An overview of the SMP Process is provided in Figure 2.
1.6 SMP Review Approach
EPA will be flexible in its review of SMPs, recognizing that different approaches and
philosophies can obtain the same environmental results. The Agency realizes that States
will need to tailor prevention measures to local ground water vulnerability, current and
future use and value of ground water, pesticide use and agronomic characteristics and
institutional characteristics. EPA Regions will work closely with States to advise and
provide technical assistance in the development of plans and will review advance drafts
of Generic and Pesticide SMPs before official drafts are submitted. Further, the review
and approval process, as envisioned by the Agency, will be characterized by a high level
of interaction between the Regions and States, with Regional Program Offices
providing States with significant feedback.
1.7 SMP Implementation and Oversight Approach
For Pesticide SMPs, EPA will require SMP Biennial Reports that will be used by
EPA Headquarters and Regional staff and State officials to evaluate a State's effectiveness
in protecting its ground water resources from pesticide contamination. In addition, the
Agency can determine through the evaluation process if the SMP needs to be updated.
SMP implementation is meant to improve with expanding knowledge about the ground
water resource and increasing technological advances. At the same time, SMPs may also
need to remain consistent with changing State ground water priorities and legal
authorities. However, if a State's Pesticide SMP fails to afford the proper protection of the
ground water resource and the State does not correct these deficiencies, then approval
of the SMP may be withdrawn, effectively leading to a prohibition on the legal sale and
use of the pesticide in the State.
Page 1-5
-------
Chapter 1
Figure 2
SMP Process
Regions
Advise
and
Provide
Technical
Assistance
to States
During
SMP
Development
State Develops and Implements
Voluntary Generic State Management Plan
Proposed Rule Published
Identifying Proposed Pesticides
Final Rule Published
(Effective Date for Implementation of Pesticide SMP Established)
I
State Notifies EPA of
Intent to Develop Pesticide SMP
*
State Develops Pesticide SMP and
Submits SMP to Region for Review and Approval
I
Region Reviews Pesticide SMP
i
Region Approves Pesticide SMP
t
State Implements Pesticide SMP by Effective Date
I
Region Conducts Biennial Evaluation of
State's Pesticide SMP
J
If necessary, Region and State Coordinate
Updates to the Pesticide SMP
Page 1-6
-------
Chapter 1
1.8 Roadmap of Appendix A
Chapter 2 provides a discussion of the review process, with
particular emphasis on the roles and responsibilities of participating
offices and agencies and on the general review process.
Chapter 3 provides a summary of the completeness review process.
Chapter 4 provides a summary of the content review process.
Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the evaluation process.
Chapter 6 discusses the process for updating an SMP.
Chapter 7 addresses the process for withdrawing approval of an
SMP for an approved SMP.
Page 1-7
-------
Chapter 2
Chapter 2
Overview of Review Process for State Management Plans
The EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Pesticides, Prevention and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS) has delegated final approval and disapproval authority for Pesticide
SMPs and concurrence authority for Generic SMPs to EPA's Regional Administrators.
Generic and Pesticide SMPs are reviewed separately. States submitting Pesticide SMPs
that reference their Generic SMPs are required to submit a copy of the Generic SMP,
regardless of whether or not the Agency has concurred with the Generic SMP.
The Regions will use a two-step process for the review and concurrence of Generic
SMPs and for the review and approval of Pesticide SMPs. The first step, the
completeness review, is a quick assessment of the submitted SMP to ensure that the
State has addressed all 12 components of an SMP. This process is discussed in Chapter
3. The second step, the content review, is a more thorough examination of the SMP to
determine whether it adequately addresses each of the 12 components of an SMP and
therefore is likely to protect the ground water resource from pesticide contamination. The
content review process is discussed in Chapter 4. States are encouraged to submit
drafts to the Regional Lead Office on an unofficial basis for review.
Figure 3 presents an overview of the Regional review and approval process for
Pesticide SMPs. The review of Generic SMPs will follow a similar process. Because
Generic SMPs are voluntary, however, EPA will only concur on them, rather than formally
approve them. In addition, EPA, with the State, will set the timeframes for the review and
concurrence process. Also, EPA does not plan to publish a Federal Register notice
announcing its concurrence with Generic SMPs. Such an announcement will follow the
approval of Pesticide SMPs.
The individual key participants in the review and approval process are identified
in Table 1. The responsibilities of these participants are presented in Table 2.
In the review process, EPA Headquarter's role is quite limited. The Regions are
in the best position to evaluate an SMP within the context of the unique hydrogeologic
and institutional characteristics of each State. To ensure some national consistency and
to determine which issues need additional clarification in the beginning of program
implementation, EPA Headquarters will be more involved in helping Regions in the review
of initial Generic and Pesticide SMPs. After program implementation is underway,
Headquarters will still be available to provide specific national policy guidance and
technical expertise at the Regions' request.
The central responsibility for conducting the review of SMPs will be on the Regional
Lead Office, which in most cases will be the Pesticides Office. However, the other
Regional Program Offices with ground water-related programs will provide the Regional
Page 2-1
-------
(Q
(D
10
ro
Figure 3
Review and Approval Process for Pesticide SMPs
Region
Works Closely
with State
In Advising
and Providing
Technical
Assistance for
Pesticide SUP (PSMP)
Development
State
Develops
PSMP and
Submits It
to the
Regional
EF
A
Administrator
i
1
State
Addresses
Deficiencies
Regional
Lead Office
Determines If
PSMP
Addresses
All 12
Components
. M
|
^k Components? ' J
Region
Reviews PSMP
to Determine If
State has
Adequately
Addressed
All 12
Components?
Has State Met
Adequacy Criteria
for All 12
Components?
O
Q>
1
ro
Regional
Administrator
Approves PSMP
The Review Process has Two Steps:
1) A Short Completeness Review; and
2) A Detailed and Careful Content Review.
The Whole Process Should Take No More
than 180 Days
COMPLETENESS REVIEW
30 DAYS
CONTENT REVIEW
150 DAYS
-------
Chapter 2
Lead Office with assistance in conducting the review. This assistance will involve
providing technical expertise in certain parts of the review. For example, the Regional
Ground Water Office will assist in determining the adequacy of the ground water
vulnerability assessment and monitoring components, while the Regional Counsel will
assist in determining the adequacy of the legal authorities of an SMP. In addition, each
office would be able to inform the Regional Lead Office if the SMP contradicts
requirements under other EPA programs. The Regional Ground Water Coordinating
Committee, or another type of formal mechanism for coordinating Regional ground water
programs, will provide active assistance to the Regional Lead Office in the review of
SMPs.
Table 1. Key Participants in SMP Review and Approval Process
Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee/Regional Program Offices: Regional
Ground Water Coordinating Committees are formally established committees that
coordinate ground water protection activities across Regional Program Oftfees that may
include ground water, drinking water, nonpoint source, pesticides, regional counsel, and
other offices, For SMP review and approval, this Committee, or a similar coordinating
mechanism, will assist the Regional Lead Office in reviewing SMPs and In ensuring
consistency between the SMP and the other State-implemented water programs.
Regional Lead Office: The Regional Administrator wilt designate a Regional Lead Office
that will have 81© Jead In coordinating the review, approval/concurrence* and evaluation of
an SMP. in most cases, the Regional Lead Office will be the Pesticides Office.
Regional Administrator: Designates the Regional Lead Office and provides final
approval/disapproval for each Pesticide SMP and concurrence/nonconcurrence for each
Generic SMP,
State Liaison: The Administrators of key State agencies appoint an individual or office as
Stale Liaison, Tnis entity coordinates all formal communication on %w SMP development
and review processes with the Region and Headquarters, The State Liaison must be
Identified in the SMP,
Page 2-3
-------
Chapter 2
Table 2. Responsibilities for Review and Approval Process1
STEP
RESPONSIBILITY
Step 1: State develops and submits
SMP to the Regional
Administrator (RA). (Generic
and Pesticide SMPs)
Regional Program Offices:
assistance during development.
Provide technical
State Liaison: Submits SMP to EPA Regional
Administrator and Regional Lead Office. Administrators
of key State agencies should have concurred with the
SMP.
EPA Regional Administrator: Transfers submittal to the
Regional Lead Office. Instructs Regional Lead Office to
assemble a review team that represents Regional
Program Offices.
Step 2: Region reviews the SMP to
determine whether all 12
components have been
addressed (completeness
review). (Generic and
Pesticide SMPs)
Regional Lead Office: Conducts completeness review.
Notifies the State Liaison either that the SMP is complete
and that the Region has begun the content review, or
that the SMP is incomplete and the State must address
the deficiencies.
State Liaison: Resolves with Regional Lead Office any
questions that might arise and revises SMP if
incomplete.
1 Activities that relate solely to the Generic SMP concurrence process are in italics.
Everything else applies to both a Generic and a Pesticide SMP, unless otherwise noted.
Page 2-4
-------
Chapter 2
Table 2. Responsibilities for Review and Approval Process (continued)
STEP
RESPONSIBILITY
Step 3: Region conducts content
review. (Generic and
Pesticide SMP)
Regional Lead Office: Develops schedule and time
frame (within the time allotted in the regulations) for
content review and coordinates review with the Ground
Water Coordinating Committee or other offices. Confers
with the State on issues of concern raised during the
content review.
Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee/
Regional Program Offices: Participate in content review,
supply required expertise, and verify that the SMP is not
in conflict with other laws or programs.
Headquarters: Provides assistance when conflicts arise
in the review process.
State Liaison: Confers with Regional Lead Office to
discuss changes necessary for Regional approval/
concurrence of the SMP. Provides information as
necessary to assist Region.
Regional Administrator: Approves/concurs or
disapproves/non-concurs on SMP based on
recommendation from the Regional Lead Office.
Page 2-5
-------
Chapter 2
Table 2. Responsibilities for Review and Approval Process (continued)
RESPONSIBILITY
Step 4: If the Regional Administrator
approves the Pesticide SMP,
the Regional Administrator
sends a Notice of Availability
and Approval to the Federal
Register and a letter of
notification to all key State
administrators who signed
the SMP.2 The Regional
Lead Office notifies the State
Liaison of the Regional
Administrator's decision. If
the RA does not approve the
Pesticide SMP, a letter of
notification is sent to the key
State administrators. If the
Pesticide SMP is not
approved, the State has the
opportunity to revise and re-
submit the SMP. (Pesticide
SMP)
The Regional Administrator's
concurrence/nonconcurrence
on the Generic SMP is not
submitted to the Federal
Register. Rather, the
Regional Administrator will
notify the Slafe Liaison and
Key State Administrators in
writing that EPA either
concurs or nonconcurs with
the Plan. If the RA
nonconcurs with the Plan, the
State has the opportunity to
revise and re-submit the
Generic SMP. (Generic
SMP)
Regional Administrator: Notifies State of Region's
decision. For Pesticide SMP only, submits Notice of
Availability and Approval to the Federal Register.
Regional Lead Office:
decision.
Notifies State Liaison of Region's
Regional Administrator: Notifies key State agencies of
concurrence/nonconcurrence or approval/disapproval.
2 Note: EPA is currently exploring the possibility of a federal Notice of Availability and
Comment for specific Pesticide SMPs in addition to a State public participation process.
Page 2-6
-------
Chapter 3
Chapter 3
Review of State Management Plans for Completeness
This chapter describes the completeness review, including its participants, time
frame, and process. The completeness review is a quick assessment of the SMP to
determine whether the SMP addresses all of the necessary 12 components. It is the first
phase of the two-phase - completeness and content - review process. States are
encouraged to submit drafts to the Regional Lead Office on an unofficial basis for informal
review.
3.1 Who Does the Completeness Review?
The Regional Lead Office will review both Generic and Pesticide SMPs for
completeness.
3.2 What is the Time Frame of the Completeness Review?
The Region will review Pesticide SMPs for completeness in 30 calendar days from
the date the State submits the SMP. For Generic SMPs, the Region and State will need
to set their own time frame on the completeness review.
3.3 What Are the Procedures for the Completeness Review?
The Regional Lead Office will perform a quick assessment of the Plan to determine
whether it includes a discussion of ajl 12 program components. If the Regional Lead
Office determines that the SMP addresses all components, it will notify the State Liaison
that all 12 components are addressed and that the Region will begin the content review.
If, on the other hand, the Regional Lead Office determines that the SMP does not address
all 12 components, the Regional Lead Office will request that the State Liaison submit the
missing components. The State Liaison then will submit an official copy of the revised
SMP to the Regional Administrator and to the Regional Lead Office (to expedite the
Regional review). Once the State addresses the missing components and the SMP is
complete, the content review may proceed. Figure 4 illustrates the completeness review
process.
Page 3-1
-------
(0
CD
ro
Figure 4
Regional Completeness Review Process for SMPs
o
I
CO
Submits
SMPto
Regional
Administrator
Regions!
Lead Office
Determine* If
SMP Addresses
all 12 Components
Does
SMP Address
all 12 Components?
No
State
Addresses
Deficiencies
SMP
Review Is
Halted Until
State Addresses
Deficiencies
Regional
Administrator
Notifies State that
Content Review
has begun
Content Review Process
The Completeness
Review Ensures that all
Elements of the SMP
are Addressed
30 DAYS FOR PESTICIDE SMPs
-------
Chapter 4
Chapter 4
Review of State Management Plans for Content
The Region will review both Generic and Pesticide SMPs to determine whether the
SMP establishes a plan of action that will result in meeting FIFRA's environmental goal.
As discussed in the Pesticides and Ground Water Strategy, the environmental goal is to
prevent contamination of ground water resources that presents adverse effects to human
health and the environment.
In the second stage of the review process, the content review, the Region will
evaluate the description of each of the 12 SMP components to determine whether these
components together will adequately meet the environmental goal. As part of this review
process, the Region will use the adequacy criteria outlined in the Guidance for Pesticides
and Ground Water State Management Plans to evaluate the 12 components. However,
EPA recognizes that the extent to which each component is discussed and the level and
stringency of pesticide management depends on a number of factors, including the
State's ground water protection philosophy, ground water vulnerability, degree of
pesticide use, agronomic practices, and the uses and value of ground water in the State.
Therefore, EPA will be flexible in its review of SMPs, accepting that different approaches
and philosophies can attain the same general environmental goal.
The content review process for a Pesticide SMP is presented in Figure 5.
Chapter 4 includes the following sections:
• Section 4.1 describes who is involved in the content review;
• Section 4.2 discusses the time frame of the content review;
• Section 4.3 outlines the content review process; and
• Section 4.4 describes the process for ensuring that Pesticide SMPs
are consistent with USDA Conservation Compliance Plans in each
State.
4.1 Who Does the Content Review?
The Regional Lead Office, designated by the Regional Administrator, will coordinate
the Regional review of both the Generic and Pesticide SMPs. The Regional Lead Office
will have the responsibility for developing a schedule for the review, integrating comments
of the Regional Program Offices involved in the review, and recommending to the
Regional Administrator whether to approve or disapprove the Pesticide SMP, or concur
or nonconcur on the Generic SMP.
Page 4-1
-------
Figure 5
Regional Content Review and Approval Process for SMPs
Ragtonal Lead Office
Initiate* Content
RWNW by*
1) Notifying th* State
Ualeon Program Offlo*
tNrt the Generic SMP (GSMP)
or ttw PMtteMo SMP (PSMP) I*
Complete and that the Content
Review to Underway; and
2) Aeaurlng Appropriate
Participation In
Ravlaw by other
Ground Water Program*
Has the
State mat
Adequacy Criteria tor
each SMP
Component?
Does
the State
Agra* to Address
Deficiencies?
GSMP does not
receive concurrence.
or
PSMP la not
Approved; Sale
and Use of the
Pesticide In
Question la
Prohibited
RA Concurs on GSMP.
or
RA Approve*
PSMP and Publish**
Notice of Approval
and Availability In
FR;U*eof Pecttelde
Continues under the
Terms of the PSMP
State
Deficiencies
The Content Review
is an Evaluation of the
Adequacy of the PSMP
to Meet the Environmental Goal
150 DAYS FOR PESTICIDE SMPs
-------
Chapter 4
The Regional Program Offices, which include the Offices of Pesticides, Ground
Water, Drinking Water, and Regional Counsel, will assist the Regional Lead Office in the
content review by providing expertise as necessary and ensuring consistency between
the SMP and other State-implemented water programs.
4.2 What Is the Time Frame for the Content Review?
For Pesticide SMPs, the Region will perform both the completeness and content
review of a Pesticide SMP within 180 calendar days of receiving the Pesticide SMP from
the State. As discussed in Chapter 3, the Region will undertake the completeness review
first and must conclude this review within 30 calendar days of receiving the SMP. This
allows the Region a minimum of 150 calendar days to determine the adequacy of the
SMP. Should the Region conclude the completeness review earlier than 30 calendar
days, the Region may use the remaining days in addition to the 150 calendar days to
determine the adequacy of the SMP.
For Generic SMPs, the Region and the State will need to set a time frame for the
content review.
4.3 What Are the Procedures for the Content Review?
After notifying the State Liaison that the SMP is complete, the Region will begin its
review of the SMP components to determine if the adequacy criteria are met for each
component. The Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee and the Regional
Program Offices will provide expertise and assistance as necessary during the content
review process. After the content review, the Regional Administrator will decide whether
to approve/concur on the Pesticide or Generic SMP.
If the Regional review concludes that the Pesticide SMP is adequate, the Regional
Administrator will send a letter notifying the State Liaison and the administrators of the key
State agencies. If the Regional review concludes that the SMP is inadequate, the
Regional Lead Office will work with the State Liaison to address those areas that are of
concern to the Region. If the Region and State fail to reach a consensus on a Pesticide
SMP, the Regional Administrator will send a letter of notification to the State Liaison and
the administrators of the key State agencies indicating that EPA will not approve the
State's Plan. Without approval by the "SMP effective date," pesticide sale and use will be
prohibited in the State. The State will reserve the option to revise and re-submit the Plan.
If the Regional review concludes that the Generic SMP is adequate, the Regional
Administrator will notify the State Liaison and all key State Administrators who signed the
SMP that EPA concurs with the submitted Plan. If, however, the Regional review
concludes that the Generic SMP is inadequate, the Regional Lead Office will work with
the State Liaison to address those areas that are of concern to the Region. If, after
negotiation, the Region and State do not reach a consensus on the Generic SMP, the
Regional Administrator will not concur with the Generic SMP.
Page 4-3
-------
Chapter 4
4.4 Consistency with Conservation Compliance Plans (Pesticide SMPs
only)
In developing Pesticides State Management Plans, States should work with the
USDA Soil Conservation Service State office to ensure that the management measures
in USDA Conservation Compliance Plans (CCPs) and Pesticide SMPs are coordinated
closely. CCPs are required under the Food and Security Act of 1985 for farms with highly
erodible land in order to remain eligible for USDA benefits. Because both programs may
manage pesticides differently in the same geographical areas, there is some potential for
conflicting pesticide management measures. For example, the Pesticide SMP may
include prohibitions on use during certain times of the year. A CCP may not have these
restrictions on pesticide use but may have other restrictions that the Pesticide SMP does
not have in that same geographical area. States must acknowledge in Pesticide SMPs
that they have worked with the Soil Conservation Service and that pesticides measures
complement each other or do not conflict.
If State Agencies and the USDA Soil Conservation Service State office could not
reach an agreement on management measures to be applied to a specific area, the State
should explain this in its SMP. In making a determination regarding whether management
measures have been coordinated between the two programs, EPA will provide the USDA
Soil Conservation Service with an opportunity to elevate disputes regarding Pesticide
SMP management measures to the EPA Administrator.
Page 4-4
-------
Chapter 5
Chapter 5
Evaluation of State Management Plan Implementation
Periodic evaluations of the implementation status of Generic and Pesticide SMPs
should provide a basis for measuring the State's progress toward protection of ground
water resources from pesticide contamination. In general, the evaluations serve the
following functions:
• Provide an assessment of the status of implementation efforts;
• Determine the environmental effectiveness and the level of ground
water protection provided by an implemented Pesticide SMP; and
• Ensure national consistency.
This chapter includes the following sections:
• Section 5.1 provides an overview of the two evaluation components
of the Pesticide SMP Biennial Report: (1) programmatic evaluation
and (2) environmental evaluation;
• Section 5.2 describes in detail the programmatic evaluation
component for Pesticide SMPs;
• Section 5.3 describes in detail the environmental evaluation
component for Pesticide SMPs;
• Section 5.4 describes the Pesticide SMP Biennial Report evaluation
process;
• Section 5.5 discusses the role and authorities of participants in the
evaluation process;
• Section 5.6 provides a summary of the potential outcomes of the
evaluation process; and
• Section 5.7 discusses submitting monitoring data to EPA's Pesticides
and Ground Water Database.
5.1 Pesticide SMP Biennial Report
The Pesticide SMP Biennial Report will be required for Pesticide SMPs only.
Reoortino oroaress for the voluntary Generic SMPs will be performed through the FIFRA
Page 5-1
-------
Chapter 5
grant process. SMP Biennial reports will be used by EPA Headquarters and Regional
personnel and State officials to evaluate a State's effectiveness in protecting its ground
water resources from pesticide contamination. Information provided for the "normal"
FIFRA, CWA, and NPS reporting may be included in the SMP Biennial Report. The report
consists of the following two components:
• Programmatic Evaluation. This component of the Pesticide SMP
Biennial Report is designed to determine whether a State is
implementing all components of its SMP. The programmatic
evaluation will compare the actual implementation activities with the
activities described in an EPA-approved Pesticide SMP.
• Environmental Evaluation. This component of the Pesticide SMP
Biennial Report is designed to assess an SMP's effectiveness in
preventing adverse effects to human health and the environment
from pesticide contamination of ground water. An environmental
evaluation will use a number of measures and indicators (e.g.,
ground water sampling, ground water and soil monitoring, pesticide
use statistics, and environmental indicators) to determine if the
prevention measures in an SMP are protecting the ground water
resource adequately.* EPA realizes that it will take time for the
measures to have an environmental impact and that the direct
measurement of environmental progress may not be obtainable in
the first years of SMP implementation.
5.2 Pesticide SMP Biennial Report - Programmatic Evaluation
In preparing the programmatic evaluation component of the Pesticide SMP Biennial
Report, a State should address each component of the SMP individually. A State should
discuss the progress it has made in implementing each component in accordance with
the adequacy criteria outlined in the SMP Guidance. In addition, the following information
should be included in the State's SMP Biennial Report:
• Demonstration that all 12 components are fully operational to protect
ground water, and a discussion of the accomplishments and
progress for each of the 12 components of an SMP;
• Identification of any special issues (e.g., change in resources to
implement the SMP, change in legal authority) within the State
regarding the SMP;
• Description of projected available resources for the next two years,
with a comparison to the resources necessary to carry out the Plan;
• Description of any proposed modifications or updates to the SMP
(See Chapter 6 for further information on updating SMPs);
Page 5-2
-------
Chapter 5
• Data on the number of inspections performed to determine
compliance with provisions of the SMP, completed enforcement
actions related to noncompliance, and a summary of findings; and
• Description of response actions taken for detections of the specific
pesticide.
In addition, a State may choose to highlight particular deficiencies of the SMP that
need to be addressed through modification or amendment of the SMP. The State may
also discuss changes to the SMP that are now possible as a result of an increased
understanding of the ground water resource and pesticide usage. (See Chapter 6 for a
discussion of how SMPs are updated.)
5.3 Pesticide SMP Biennial Report - Environmental Evaluation
States and EPA will use the environmental evaluation component of the Pesticide
SMP Biennial Report to determine if SMPs are successfully protecting ground water from
pesticide contamination. EPA recognizes that direct measurement of progress in
environmental protection may not be obtainable in the first few years of SMP
implementation. However, through evaluation of pesticide usage data, ground water
monitoring results, and other environmental indicators, EPA hopes to draw conclusions
on the effectiveness of Pesticide SMPs.
In preparing the environmental component of the SMP Biennial Report, a State
should demonstrate that a Pesticide SMP is preventing the leaching of pesticides into the
ground water. The SMP Biennial Report should include the following:
• Results and analyses from ground water sampling and monitoring as
well as a summary of significant finds which would prompt a State
to increase its degree of oversight of use of the pesticide or modify
its SMP; and
• An assessment of pesticide usage and whether use of the specific
pesticide has increased, decreased, or remained essentially the
same over the past two years. (A change in usage, such as
expansion to new crops or a decline in pesticide use, might change
the needs of the SMP in the State).
Because each Pesticide SMP will be evaluated for its environmental effectiveness,
a State should be certain to address specifically each pesticide in its SMP Biennial
Report.
5.4 Pesticide SMP Biennial Report Evaluation Process
States will submit the Pesticide SMP Biennial Reports for each of their Pesticide
SMPs to the Regional Lead Office at the same time as End-of-Year Reports are due,
Page 5-3
-------
Chapter 5
although on alternative years. If a State has more than one approved Pesticide SMP,
then the SMP evaluation should include programmatic and environmental evaluations
addressing each approved Pesticide SMP. Figure 6 provides an overview of the
evaluation process for Pesticide SMPs, which includes the following steps:
Step 1. The State submits SMP Biennial Report. The State may also develop
and submit a SMP Update Report (if applicable) for EPA review (see Chapter 6).
Step 2. Following the submission of a State's SMP Biennial Report, the
Regional Lead Office will organize and facilitate the evaluation with the Ground Water
Coordinating Committee and other Regional Program Offices. While the role of the other
Regional Program Offices and the Ground Water Coordinating Committee in the
evaluation process will vary from Region to Region, in general, the other Regional
Program Offices will assist the Regional Lead Office by evaluating portions or
components of the SMP Biennial fteport.
The Regional Lead Office, in cooperation and conjunction with the Ground Water
Coordinating Committee and/or the other Regional Program Offices, will determine
whether the State is implementing and enforcing the SMP. Following this determination,
the Regional Lead Office will advise the Regional Administrator on the evaluation.
Step 3. In some cases, the Regional Lead Office may ask the State Liaison
to provide additional information on the implementation or effectiveness of an SMP.
Step 4. The Regional Administrator provides a written notification to the State
Administrators on the outcome of the evaluation.
If failure to implement the Pesticide SMP is a result of a lack of consistency of the
SMP with new State priorities, or if the provisions of the Pesticide SMP are not adequately
protecting ground water, the State may consider updating or amending the plan (see
Chapter 6 for a discussion of how SMPs are updated).
5.5 Roles and Responsibilities for Evaluating Pesticide SMPs
State Liaisons are responsible for preparing and submitting the Pesticide SMP
Biennial Report. The participating State agencies may want to use State and federal
reports for information for the SMP Biennial Report. The State Liaison does not have to
be the same State Liaison who coordinated with the Region on SMP concurrence or
approval. The State Liaison should represent one of the key State agencies, a committee
in charge of coordinating SMP activities, or other relevant State organization. The State
Liaison must obtain concurrence from the administrators of the key State agencies that
play a role in implementing the SMP. During the review, the Regional Lead Office may
ask the State Liaison for additional information on the status and effectiveness of SMP
implementation.
Page 5-4
-------
Chapter 5
Figure 6
Evaluation of Pesticide SMPs
Slat*
Submit*
Bknnlal
Report to
the Regional
Lead Office
Regional Lead Office
Organizes and
Conduct* the
Evaluation In
Cooperation
with Other Offices
lath*
State
Satisfactorily
Implementing the
Pesticide
SMP(PSMP)?
State Continues
Use of
Pesticide Under
Terms of the
PSMP
State Continues
Use of
Pesticide Under
Terms of the
PSMP
Withdrawal
Process
(See Chapter 7)
Page 5-5
-------
Chapter 5
In addition to the reporting requirements for the Pesticide SMP Biennial Report, the
State Liaison must immediately inform the Regional Lead Office of any significant
pesticide contamination detections (e.g., pesticide detections that include, but are not
limited to those that prompt a State to increase its degree of oversight of use of the
pesticide or modify its Pesticide SMP), progress on the investigation of and response to
these finds (e.g., information concerning the source of contamination and response), and
any inability of State agencies to implement aspects of the plan (e.g., loss of financial
resources). The Regional Lead Office may also request additional information on
programmatic activities and how States are using grants for SMPs as part of their normal
programmatic evaluation.
The Regional Lead Office is responsible for organizing and conducting the
evaluation. Its responsibilities include the following:
• Organizing and scheduling the evaluation process with the Regional
Ground Water Coordinating Committee and/or other Regional
Program Offices;
• Communicating with the State, as appropriate, to facilitate the
evaluation process;
• Drafting the final determination of an SMP evaluation as well as
writing a brief summary of the evaluation;
• Notifying the State Liaison on the outcome of the evaluation; and
• If necessary, conducting joint, on-site reviews with each State as a
follow up to the Biennial Report evaluation in conjunction with the
Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee and other offices.
The Regional Administrator will provide a written notification to the State
Administrators on the outcome of the evaluation.
Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee/Regional Program Offices will
assist in evaluating the progress the State has made in implementing the SMPs. They
will work with the Regional Lead Office in reviewing progress in implementing the
components of an SMP for the programmatic evaluation and will provide technical
expertise in the environmental evaluation. For example, the Regional Ground Water
Protection Branch might assist the Regional Lead Office in reviewing and evaluating the
ground water vulnerability and monitoring data provided by the State as part of the
environmental evaluation. Program offices also will ensure that implementation of SMPs
and other State-implemented programs are consistent and do not duplicate efforts. In
addition, the other program offices may decide to conduct joint, on-site reviews with the
Regional Lead Office as a follow-up to the SMP Biennial Report evaluation.
Page 5-6
-------
Chapter 5
EPA Headquarters can provide advice and guidance to the Regions as
appropriate in the evaluation process. Headquarters will receive summaries of the
Regions' evaluations in order to assess periodically the national effectiveness of the SMP
approach. Headquarters may request full SMP Biennial Reports to review when there is
a major national consistency concern.
5.6 Summary of Evaluation Outcomes
The outcomes of the evaluations for Generic SMPs and Pesticide SMPs are
substantially different. For Generic SMPs, States and Regions identify, through the grant
application and negotiation process, aspects of the SMP that will be implemented using
grant funds. Progress on implementing these aspects of Generic SMPs are evaluated
through the FIFRA grant year-end reporting process. If the State fails to carry out
activities agreed upon, then additional grants given to the State for Generic SMP activities
may be withheld. If failure to comply is a result of a lack of consistency of the SMP with
new State ground water priorities, the State and EPA should discuss updating or
amending the State's plan. (See Chapter 6 for Updating SMPs.)
The following is a summary of the potential outcomes of the Pesticide SMP
evaluation process:
• Pesticide SMP is implemented and is successfully protecting the
around water resource. If a State's Pesticide SMP is both
implemented and is preventing contamination that presents adverse
effects, then the State may continue to manage the pesticide
according to the requirements of the Pesticide SMP.
• Pesticide SMP is not implemented. If a State fails to implement a
Pesticide SMP, then the State should consult with the Regional Lead
Office about carrying out the activities in a manner consistent with
the approved Pesticide SMP. If the State fails to carry out the
activities, then approval will be withdrawn, effectively leading to
prohibiting the legal sale and use of the pesticide in the State. (See
Chapter 7 for the Withdrawal of Approval of SMPs.) Grants given to
the State for Pesticide SMP activities may be withheld. If failure to
comply is a result of a lack of consistency of the Pesticide SMP with
new State ground water priorities, then the State and EPA should
discuss the State's updating or amending the plan (see Chapter 6
for a discussion on how SMPs are updated).
• Pesticide SMP is implemented, but is not adequately protecting
the ground water resource. If an implemented Pesticide SMP fails
to prevent contamination that will result in adverse effects over time,
then the State should update the SMP (see Chapter 6 for Updating
SMPs). The updated Pesticide SMP should include more stringent
preventive actions (e.g., prohibitions of use in a geographic area
Page 5-7
-------
Chapter 5
where contamination is found) to protect the ground water from
pesticide contamination. If the State fails to update the Pesticide
SMP and carry out the revised activities, then approval of the
Pesticide SMP will be withdrawn (see Chapter 7 for a discussion on
the withdrawal of SMPs), effectively prohibiting legal sale and use of
the pesticide in the State. Additional grant funding under the
Cooperative Agreement and/or Clean Water Act Section 106 (ground
water) may also be withheld.
5.7 Submittal of Monitoring Data to the EPA Pesticides in Ground
Water Data Base
EPA strongly encourages States to submit a final or interim report of their
monitoring data to EPA Headquarters' Pesticides in Ground Water Data Base (PGWDB)
during their Biennial Evaluation or at any other time. This EPA data base is a compilation
of monitoring studies from States, industries, universities and other organizations. EPA
Headquarters has recently published an updated national summary report of the data
base and will publish other reports in the future.
States wishing to submit monitoring data should provide a hard copy of a final or
interim report and the sample and well data in electronic format. PGWDB data elements
are listed below. Electronic media should be accompanied by a description that includes
hardware compatibility (IBM, Apple, etc.), operating system (DOS, UNIX, OS2), format
identification (ASCII or software package name), and a data dictionary. Any information
provided to EPA Headquarters should also be provided (in hard copy) to the appropriate
EPA Regional office. Anyone wishing to provide comments or data may do so by
contacting Constance A. Haaser, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division (H75O7C), 401 M Street,
S.W., Washington D.C. 20460. (703) 305-5455 (tel) and (703) 305-6309 (fax).
Page 5-8
-------
Chapter 5
Figure 7
Data Elements for the Pesticides in Ground Water Data Base
Well File
Study Number
Study Number(s)
Study Number
Study Title
Unique Well Number1
Unique Well Number1
Sponsoring Agency(ies)
State and County FIPS Codes2
Pesticide
Project Officer(s) (PO)
Latitude and Longitude
Concentration (ug/L)
PO Address(es)
Depth to Water Table (m)
Limit of Detection (ug/L)
PO Tetephone(s)
Well Depth (m)
Sample Date
USEPA Region
Depth to Top and Bottom of Screen
Interval (m)
Analytical Method8
Starting and Ending Dates
Well Type4
Origin of Contamination9
Publication Date
Abstract
Well Log and Other Information5
Altitude6
Page 5-9
-------
Chapter 5
Figure 7 (continued)
Footnotes
1. This is a unique identifier assigned to each well in the well file. Many States have assigned a unique identifier
to wells sampled. In these cases, the number was retained, and used in the PGWDB as that well's unique
well number.
2. The Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) alphabetic or numeric codes for States (example Ml is
the alphabetic code for Michigan, 26 in the numeric code for Michigan). County codes are three digit numeric
codes.
3. Coordinate representations that indicate a location on the surface of the earth using the equator (latitude) and
the Prime Meridian (longitude) as origin. Coordinates are measured in degrees, minutes, and seconds with
an indicator of north or south, and east or west.
4. Wells have been classified as follows:
Drinking water public community — a system of piped drinking water that either has at least 15 service
connections or serves at least 25 permanent residents;
Drinking water public non-community — wells serving public facilities such as fire stations, schools, or
libraries;
Drinking water private — privately owned wells serving a residence or farm;
Non-drinking water monitoring — wells installed specifically for monitoring ground water; and
Non-drinking water other — wells used for irrigation, industrial application, etc.
5. This field will allow storage of limited well log or other information about the well, such as construction details.
6. The vertical distance from the National Reference Datum to the land surface or other measuring point in
meters.
7. Pesticides are tracked by their Chemical Abstracts System (CAS) number. There is also a cross-reference file
that contains all pesticide synonyms and other OPP reference numbers. Any chemical that is currently or has
ever been registered as a pesticide by the USEPA, OPP is eligible to be included in the PGWDB. Some
chemicals might be more commonly associated with industrial processes; however, if these chemicals are
now or were previously registered and used as pesticides, monitoring results will be included in the data base.
8. A short name, reference, or description of the analytical method which was used. This field is not intended to
hold the entire method.
9. An origin of contamination is listed for each analysis performed as follows:
NFU — Known or suspected normal field use
PS — Known or suspected point source
LINK — Unknown source of contamination.
Page 5-10
-------
Chapter 6
Chapter 6
Updating State Management Plans
Pesticide State Management Plans should be drafted so that they are self-adjusting
and should include a range of possible contingency plans that would be triggered by
pesticide detections in ground water, new information about pesticide usage patterns,
and ground water vulnerability, use, and value. Because plans will include a full menu
of options, the need for updating plans will probably not be a common event.
Implementation of SMPs should, however, improve with expanding knowledge,
increasing technological advances, and greater understanding of ground water resources.
If the menu of options in the SMP does not meet the State's ground water or other
needs, then States should consider updating their Generic and Pesticide SMPs. The
following are some situations in which States may need to update plans:
• If the SMP evaluation determines that the provisions in a State's SMP
do not adequately protect the ground water resource from pesticide
contamination;
• If improved ground water vulnerability assessments or monitoring
methods, prevention technologies, or information concerning the risk
posed by a pesticide become available;
• If a State, through experience, finds more effective ways to
implement the SMP (e.g., disseminate information); or
• If other changes occur within a State, such as changes in roles and
responsibilities, legal and enforcement frameworks, crop patterns,
and/or crop production systems and technologies.
Chapter 6 includes the following sections:
• Section 6.1 discusses the Update Report associated with the
updating process;
• Section 6.2 provides a summary of the SMP update process; and
• Section 6.3 delineates the roles and responsibilities of the
participants in the updating process.
Page 6-1
-------
Chapter 6
6.1 The SNIP Update
If a State is aware that an update is needed, then that update can be submitted
as part of the SMP Biennial Report, at any other time, or, if the Regional Lead Office
determines through the evaluation process, or at other times that an SMP needs to be
updated, then the Regional Administrator can initiate the updating process by requesting
that a State submit an SMP Update Report. In every case, the Update Report must
include:
• A description of the proposed changes;
• An explanation of why the changes are necessary;
• An analysis of the impact the changes will have on the other
components of the SMP, the implementation of the SMP, and the
protection of the resource;
• If changes will affect the pesticide user, a description of how they will
be alerted to the changes in the SMP;
• If changes are significant, a description of how the State received
public input on changes to the SMP; and
• Concurrences by all Administrators of the key State agencies.
Changes or updates to both Generic and Pesticide SMPs must be concurred or
approved by the Regional Administrator.
6.2 The SMP Updating Process
The State should develop and submit an SMP Update Report to the Region if the
Region or the State determines that the SMP requires updating.
If the changes to the Pesticide SMP are significant, then the Region publishes a
Federal Register Notice of Availability indicating that the State's Pesticide SMP has been
updated and describing the changes made. An overview of the SMP update process for
Pesticide SMPs is provided in Figure 8.
6.3 Roles and Responsibilities for Updating SMPs
The State Liaison is responsible for preparing and submitting SMP updates when
they are necessary. When the Regional Lead Office needs further clarification on the
update, the State Liaison should be prepared to provide additional information. In
addition, the State Liaison will need to respond to the Regional Lead Office if it is
determined that the Update Report does not adequately address the deficiencies.
Page 6-2
-------
Chapter 6
Figure 8
Update Process for Pesticide SMPs
Region or State Determines that
Pesticide SMP (PSMP) Requires Updating
State Develops and Submits
PSMP Update Report
Region Assesses Adequacy of
PSMP Update Report
State Addresses Deficiencies
RA Approves PSMP Update Report
and Publishes FR Notice of Availability
Page 6-3
-------
Chapter 6
The Regional Lead Office has lead responsibility for organizing and conducting
the assessment of the update with the assistance of the Regional Ground Water
Coordinating Committee and other program offices. Its responsibilities include:
• Notifying EPA Headquarters of significant updates to SMPs;
• Organizing and scheduling the review of an update with the Regional
Ground Water Coordinating Committee and/or the other Regional
Program Offices;
• Organizing contact with the State Liaison to facilitate the assessment
process;
• Advising the Regional Administrator on what the final determination
of an updated SMP review should be; and
• If changes are significant, organizing the publication of a Notice of
Availability for an updated SMP in the Federal Register (for a
Pesticide SMP).
The Regional Administrator will provide the final determination on an SMP
update. The Regional Administrator is responsible for providing a written response to the
Administrators of key State agencies on the outcome of the review of the SMP update.
In addition, the Regional Administrator publishes a Federal Register notice indicating that
a State's Pesticide SMP has been updated (if the changes to the Pesticide SMP are
significant).
The Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee/Regional Program
Offices will assist in evaluating the proposed changes to a State's SMP.
EPA Headquarters will not be directly involved in the updating process for SMPs.
However, EPA Headquarters can provide advice and guidance to the Regions, as
appropriate.
Page 6-4
-------
Chapter 7
Chapter 7
Withdrawal of Approval for a
Pesticide State Management Plan
If a Pesticide State Management Plan fails to meet the goal of the Pesticides and
Ground Water Strategy, then either the plan may need to be updated (see Chapter 6) or
the State must demonstrate that the SMP is being satisfactorily implemented. Withdrawal
of approval of an SMP is a phased process, and States will have ample opportunities to
respond to the Regions' requests and concerns to update or sufficiently implement the
SMP. Withdrawal of approval can occur when:
• The State fails to demonstrate that it is satisfactorily implementing the
SMP;
• The State's SMP is not preventing adverse effects from pesticide
contamination of ground water; or
• The State fails to address deficiencies identified by the SMP
Evaluation through updating the SMP and/or improving
implementation of the SMP.
7.1 The Withdrawal Process
Before the withdrawal process commences, the State will have the opportunity to
respond to these deficiencies in its Pesticide SMPs through the SMP updating process
or by providing satisfactory assurances that implementation deficiencies will be corrected.
The Regional Lead Office will work closely with individual State agencies or the State
Liaison to assist the State in updating the plan or in addressing deficiencies or gaps in
protection. In the event that deficiencies and gaps are not addressed, then the Regional
Lead Office should notify the State Liaison that the Region may consider withdrawing the
Pesticide SMP. Then, if the State does not respond to the Region's concerns, the
Regional Administrator will send a formal letter to the State Administrators initiating the
withdrawal of the Pesticide SMP. The notice will include:
• A statement concerning the potential withdrawal of the SMP;
• A listing of the deficiencies of the SMP or a description of the failure
of the Pesticide SMP to protect ground water;
• A brief summary of the events that led to the withdrawal notice (e.g.,
failure to respond to SMP's deficiencies in the Biennial Report, failure
to update the SMP adequately); and
Page 7-1
-------
Chapter 7
• A time frame in which the State can respond to the deficiencies to
stop the withdrawal process (e.g., time frames for submitting an SMP
Update Report for improving implementation of the plan).
The State must respond in writing to the notice with a commitment to address the
deficiencies in the SMP itself or in SMP implementation. If the SMP itself is deficient, the
State Liaison should submit an SMP Update Report and work with the Region to fulfill the
requirements of the updating process (See Chapter 6 for a complete discussion of the
updating process). If the Pesticide SMP has not been properly implemented by the State,
the State must provide satisfactory assurances that implementation deficiencies will be
corrected. If the State does not respond, the Regional Administrator will send a formal
letter to the State Administrators indicating that EPA is publishing a Federal Register
Notice to announce withdrawal of the Pesticide SMP. Then, the Region will publish a
Notice of Withdrawal in the Federal Register and prohibit the sale and use of the pesticide
in the State. Figure 9 outlines the withdrawal process for Pesticide SMPs.
States may appeal the initiation of the withdrawal to the Regional Administrator.
However, if the pesticide poses a high risk to human health or the environment, sale and
use of the pesticide may be prohibited until EPA and the State reach an agreement on
how to address the SMP's deficiencies. If a State appeals the withdrawal, the State must
initiate a request to meet with the Regional Administrator within 60 calendar days from the
time the EPA Regional Administrator sends the letter initiating withdrawal.
7.2 Roles and Responsibilities for Withdrawing Pesticide SMP
Approval
State Liaisons are responsible for working with the Regional Lead Office and the
State Administrators to correct deficiencies and coordinating responses to the Regional
Administrator's letter initiating withdrawal.
The Regional Lead Office has the lead responsibility for working with the State
to correct deficiencies and, if necessary, conducting the withdrawal process. Its
responsibilities include:
• Working with the State Liaison in attempting to address deficiencies
to prevent raising issues to higher management levels and
withdrawing the plan;
• Assisting the Regional Administrator in initiating and completing the
withdrawal process, and working further with the State Liaison in
addressing deficiencies;
Page 7-2
-------
Chapter 7
Figure 9
Withdrawal Process for Pesticide SMPs
Regional Lead Office Notifies the
State Liaison that the Region may consider
Withdrawing the Pesticide SMP (PSMP)
Region and State work to
Address Deficiencies;
Use of Pesticide In Question
Continues Under Terms of the PSMP
NO
RA Sends a Formal Letter to
the State Administrators Initiating the
Withdrawal of the PSMP
Region Publishes a
Notice of Withdrawal In
the FR; Sato and Use of
Pesticide In Question
is Prohibited
' Region and State work to
Address Deficiencies;
Use of Pesticide In Question
Continues Under Terms of the PSMP
Page 7-3
-------
Chapter 7
• Coordinating with and informing the Regional Ground Water
Coordinating Committee and/or the other Regional Program Offices
and EPA Headquarters about possible withdrawal actions; and
• Organizing the publication of the Notice of Withdrawal in the Federal
Register (for a Pesticide SMP).
The Regional Administrator will determine whether a Pesticide SMP should be
withdrawn. If the SMP is to be withdrawn, he/she will send a letter initiating withdrawal
and a letter of the final determination to withdraw the pesticide to the State Administrators.
The Regional Administrator is responsible for publishing the Notice of Withdrawal in the
Federal Register. As a result, the sale and use of the pesticide in the State is prohibited
(Pesticide SMP).
The Regional Ground Water Coordinating Committee/Other Regional Program
Offices will assist the Regional Lead Office in deciding if the SMP should be withdrawn
and, if necessary, in withdrawing the plan.
EPA Headquarters will not be directly involved in the withdrawal process for
SMPs. However, Headquarters can provide advice and guidance to the Regions, as
appropriate.
Page 7-4
------- |